Thursday, July 9, 2009

The Johns Hopkins Study

I extend big thanks to our frequent commenter, Thirdpower, for tipping me off to the latest study which supports the gun control movement. Science Daily has posted an article about the study.

Comprehensive regulation of gun sellers appears to reduce the trafficking of guns to criminals, according to a study led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Preventing the diversion of guns to criminals is important because 85 percent of guns recovered by police were recovered from criminal suspects who were not the original purchasers of the guns according to prior research from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Of course the pro-gun bloggers are all taking the study apart. Most of them begin by pointing out that the Joyce Foundation partly funded the research. I don't think that proves anything since we already put a sceptical eye on these things anyway.

Another problem some people had with the report is the fact that in some cities where gun trafficking was low, crime is very high. What I think they conveniently overlooked is that the study differentiated between in-state and out-of-state trafficking. Where gun control laws are in effect, in-state trafficking is very low, proving the laws are effective. Crime may still be high due to out-of-state trafficking, as well as all the other problems that contribute to crime in inner cities.

According to the study, cities with the lowest levels of in-state gun trafficking were Santa Ana, CA; Camden and Newark, NJ; New York, NY; and Boston, MA. Each of these cities was in a state that regulates private sales of handguns, four had strong gun dealer oversight and four had discretionary handgun purchase licensing systems. Cities with the highest levels of in-state gun trafficking were Gary, IN; Tucson, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; Albuquerque, NM; and Indianapolis, IN. None of these cities had any of the gun sales accountability measures examined in the study.

What that means is places like Phoenix are not only supplying their own state's criminals but also those of New Jersey and California. This cries out for a state-wide national policy on gun control.

11 comments:

"if you look at the average violent crime rate for the cities mentioned that have the least gun trafficking, it’s 1083 per 100,000. If you look at the cities mentioned that have the most gun trafficking, it’s 884 per 100,000. So it would seem if your city has more gun trafficking, it’s actually safer."

So gun control has done NOTHING to reduce actual crime.

"Where gun control laws are in effect, in-state trafficking is very low, proving the laws are effective."

No, actually it doesn't. Take a look at Illinois for example.

This 'cries out' to the desperation of the gun control movement in that they have to continue to selectively cite numbers to make their case.

Note that neither MikeB nor skyewriter have been able to dispute my numbers (actually from WISQARS) proving Hemenway doctored his study. Nor does MikeB question ANY of the numbers like he does the FBI UCR.

"Funny because, if you look at the average violent crime rate for the cities mentioned that have the least gun trafficking, it’s 1083 per 100,000. If you look at the cities mentioned that have the most gun trafficking, it’s 884 per 100,000. So it would seem if your city has more gun trafficking, it’s actually safer."

Thirdpower said, "BTW, transporting firearms over state lines is ALREADY a Federal crime.

Do it again, only HARDER."

You and some of the others keep saying that, but as usual, it's just a smoke screen and a diversion. Nobody's talking about doing anything again. We're talking about making it more difficult to buy guns in the easy gun states so they cannot be trafficked to the hard gun states. That's not doing the same thing again. That's doing something for the first time which you don't want done. That's making sensible gun laws that apply nation-wide.

Bob said, "You keep saying you want to do things differently but you never say exactly what you want to do differently."

I had already said in the same thread, "We're talking about making it more difficult to buy guns in the easy gun states so they cannot be trafficked to the hard gun states. That's not doing the same thing again. That's doing something for the first time which you don't want done. That's making sensible gun laws that apply nation-wide."